Intercity Express Programme: Invitation To Tender

[whole diary]

[Lee]

Can be found in the link below.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/

[Lee]

Here is a DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) press release on this (link below.)
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=331309&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False

Quote :

"Bidders will decide how many carriages they need to supply to provide the service the Government is asking for. Indications are that this may be around 850 in the first phase, possibly rising to approximately 1,500 if options to extend IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) to other routes are taken up."

Further article from This Is Somerset (link below.)
http://thisissomerset.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=147472&command=displayContent&sourceNode=242195&contentPK=18992308&folderPk=113662&pNodeId=251478

[Lee]

"The purpose of the Train Infrastructure Interface Specification (TIIS^▸ (Train Infrastructure Interface Program)) provides information concerning the Network Rail infrastructure on which the Intercity Express Programme (IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)) trains will operate from the date of their introduction. The TIIS also supports the development of a train design compatible with this infrastructure and facilitate discussion and optimisation of infrastructure ^ train system interfaces to achieve the best whole life whole system solutions." (link below.)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/infrastructureinterface.pdf

[Lee]

More bidder information documents (links below.)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/tara.pdf

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/mara.pdf

[signalandtelegraph]

I am amused by the fact that they now call diesels  'Self Powered Trains'  Obviously not good for the government to promote reliance on fossil fuels, not when you can hide it behind another title.  Quite appropriate to be posting this in smoke and mirrors!

[Lee]

Alstom has notified the Department for Transport that it is withdrawing from the Intercity Express Programme bidding process. Experienced rolling stock engineers have criticised the mass and energy consumption targets in DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s technical specifications for the 200 km/h IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) as impractical (link below.)
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2008/02/alstom_withdraws_from_iep.html#more

[John R]

I think the spec has been unrealistic all along as readers of Roger Ford (Modern Railways) would be familiar with. Typical government optimism (or naivety) which will gradually be pared back to reality.

[Btline]

Oh I wish the gov will see sense and put tilting back into the equation!

Now, only Virgin West Coast operate tilting. Although the Cherwell Valley Line (between Banbury and Reading, I think) is cleared for the Super Voyagers to tilt, it is not worth CrossCountry drivers putting the tilting on, as they all go towards York now (not Glasgow).

As well as this, most Voyagers on the Cherwell Valley Line, are not of the tilting type (the Super 5 car ones on the Penzance to York route).

What a waste of technology the British invented! What a waste of the Cherwell Valley Line!

What a waste of a technology that could see 140 mi/hour running on Brunel's Great Western Railway (and other routes) (and other routes at lower speeds, but faster than their current ones)!

For heavens sake, half the non tilting fleet in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) is "ready" for tilting- a perfect eg being MK^▸ (Milton Keynes) 4 carriages!

How difficult can it be to take a Mk 4 carriage, and develop a MK 5 carriage. Change nothing apart from adding tilting! Stick a tilting enabled loco (preferably electric) at the front (and a DVT^‡(resolve) at the back) and run a high speed service, where the customers are not squashed into a tin can where half the seats have no window, and where the air con spreads vile aromas throughout the passenger saloon!

Come on Ruth Kelly, forget Labour's "vision," get a grip, and deliver something that will go down in UK rail history!

"THE DAY THE UK GOT "BACK ON TRACK!!!!!!!!"

Pant.....

Sorry for the rant- needed one!

[swlines]

Pretty much all of the Bournemouth line services are formed of 221 - certainly the busy ones where potential for delay is high...

The reason for no tilting on the Cherwell Valley, is, well, it's pretty straight and IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) there isn't much in increased speeds as they're all timed for 220 anyway.

FWIW^▸ (for what it's worth), tilt is turned on and off automatically using trackside balises which the trains detect.

[eightf48544]

One of the other strange things I believe that is in the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) spec is that traction power should be distributed along the train. Like the Pendelinos. Hence it took a week each set to introduce the 9th coach.

Hence the dual mode varient. The problem with this is that the dual mode will have to lug a deadweight deisel engine about under the wires.

The only solution to avoid this would be to develop an auto coupler capable of carrying sufficient Amps at a voltage suitable to power the traction motors so you couple the deisel engine at say Crewe to haul the set off the wires to Holyhead. Much as they did  but without needing such a powerful loco (57?) because the loco would power the trains distributed motors and would only need a small traction motor itself for shunt moves. Further for the loco hauling a Pendelino set its motors are an additional  deadweight for it to haul because it cannot power them.

You know there's  lot to be said for simple locos and coaches. Given reliable auto couples and a proper track layout it should be possible to switch locos in 3 minutes. They used to do it at Cambridge in NSE^▸ (Network South East) days with the Liverpool Street to Kings Lynn service, 86 off 47 on.

[Btline]

One of the other strange things I believe that is in the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) spec is that traction power should be distributed along the train. Like the Pendelinos. Hence it took a week each set to introduce the 9th coach.

Hence the dual mode varient. The problem with this is that the dual mode will have to lug a deadweight deisel engine about under the wires.

The only solution to avoid this would be to develop an auto coupler capable of carrying sufficient Amps at a voltage suitable to power the traction motors so you couple the deisel engine at say Crewe to haul the set off the wires to Holyhead. Much as they did  but without needing such a powerful loco (57?) because the loco would power the trains distributed motors and would only need a small traction motor itself for shunt moves. Further for the loco hauling a Pendelino set its motors are an additional  deadweight for it to haul because it cannot power them.

You know there's  lot to be said for simple locos and coaches. Given reliable auto couples and a proper track layout it should be possible to switch locos in 3 minutes. They used to do it at Cambridge in NSE^▸ (Network South East) days with the Liverpool Street to Kings Lynn service, 86 off 47 on.

I've heard that they want to be able to split trains enroute. This points towards loco hauled stock.

I've also heard that they want it to be a proper replacement of the HST^▸ (High Speed Train)/IC225, so I would imagine it would be loco hauled.

[Lee]

I've heard that they want to be able to split trains enroute.

That is an option being considered. For example, services could split at Swindon, thus allowing an hourly London-Cheltenham (or even, dare I say it, Worcester) service.

On the other hand, this would mean that the Stroud Valley DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)'s which currently also form Melksham/TransWilts services would no longer be required...

[Btline]

I've heard that they want to be able to split trains enroute.

That is an option being considered. For example, services could split at Swindon, thus allowing an hourly London-Cheltenham (or even, dare I say it, Worcester) service.

On the other hand, this would mean that the Stroud Valley DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)'s which currently also form Melksham/TransWilts services would no longer be required...

But this would mean using loco hauled stock. Otherwise, there will have to be 2 buffets etc.

[Lee]

I've heard that they want to be able to split trains enroute.

That is an option being considered. For example, services could split at Swindon, thus allowing an hourly London-Cheltenham (or even, dare I say it, Worcester) service.

On the other hand, this would mean that the Stroud Valley DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)'s which currently also form Melksham/TransWilts services would no longer be required...

But this would mean using loco hauled stock. Otherwise, there will have to be 2 buffets etc.

Here is a quote from the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) South West Regional Planning Assessment For The Railway :

Options to improve connectivity to London from the far south west, the Torbay area and growing area of Gloucestershire include the introduction of a standard pattern timetable, with regular standard hour connections, and operating more through services with overall reductions in journey time. One option that would have significant benefits for the peripheral areas of the region, where demand is lower, is to split some intercity services, potentially possible as part of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), after they have passed the busiest sections of route. A long train would not necessarily be needed at off-peak times west of Swindon on services to South Wales or west of Exeter on services to the far south west. If the new train were able to divide into two portions, it would enable a direct hourly service throughout the day to be introduced to Gloucester/Cheltenham by splitting trains to South Wales at Swindon and to Torbay by splitting a standard hourly Penzance train at Exeter. Value for money and affordability will be dependent on the infrastructure required to support this type of operation which may include some re-doubling of the Swindon ^ Kemble section of route to maintain performance.

By the way, here is the RPA's one and only mention of Melksham :

"the two-track route from Salisbury to Bath via Westbury used mainly by inter-urban services between Cardiff, Bristol and South Hampshire and local services (and the lightly-used single track route via Melksham to Chippenham)"

[Btline]

I've heard that they want to be able to split trains enroute.

That is an option being considered. For example, services could split at Swindon, thus allowing an hourly London-Cheltenham (or even, dare I say it, Worcester) service.

On the other hand, this would mean that the Stroud Valley DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)'s which currently also form Melksham/TransWilts services would no longer be required...

But this would mean using loco hauled stock. Otherwise, there will have to be 2 buffets etc.

Here is a quote from the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) South West Regional Planning Assessment For The Railway :

Options to improve connectivity to London from the far south west, the Torbay area and growing area of Gloucestershire include the introduction of a standard pattern timetable, with regular standard hour connections, and operating more through services with overall reductions in journey time. One option that would have significant benefits for the peripheral areas of the region, where demand is lower, is to split some intercity services, potentially possible as part of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), after they have passed the busiest sections of route. A long train would not necessarily be needed at off-peak times west of Swindon on services to South Wales or west of Exeter on services to the far south west. If the new train were able to divide into two portions, it would enable a direct hourly service throughout the day to be introduced to Gloucester/Cheltenham by splitting trains to South Wales at Swindon and to Torbay by splitting a standard hourly Penzance train at Exeter. Value for money and affordability will be dependent on the infrastructure required to support this type of operation which may include some re-doubling of the Swindon ^ Kemble section of route to maintain performance.

By the way, here is the RPA's one and only mention of Melksham :

"the two-track route from Salisbury to Bath via Westbury used mainly by inter-urban services between Cardiff, Bristol and South Hampshire and local services (and the lightly-used single track route via Melksham to Chippenham)"

Looks good. Have 3 problems:

*Redouble the Cotswold line before the Stroud line!

*Why have hourly services to Penzance. Surely 2 hourly (like at the moment) is enough, with a local DMU filling the gaps, and calling at the other stops?

*The off peak trains I've seen at Cardiff have looked busy!